Standing Committee B

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]

Schedule 4 - Other offences for purposes of Part 2

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 313, in 
schedule 4, page 89, line 30, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert— 
 '64 Murder. 
 64A Culpable homicide. 
 64B Assault. 
 64C Assault and robbery. 
 64D Abduction. 
 64E Plagium. 
 64F Wrongful imprisonment. 
 64G Threatening personal violence. 
 64H Breach of the peace inferring personal violence. 
 64I Wilful fireraising. 
 64J Culpable and reckless fireraising. 
 64K Mobbing and rioting. 
 64L An offence under section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 (c.3) (causing explosion likely to endanger life or property). 
 64M An offence under section 3 of that Act (attempt to cause explosion, or making or keeping explosives with intent to endanger life or property). 
 64N An offence under section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c.37) (cruelty to persons under 16). 
 64O An offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c.27) (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life). 
 64P An offence under section 16A of that Act (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence). 
 64Q An offence under section 17(1) of that Act (use of firearm to resist arrest). 
 64R An offence under section 17(2) of that Act (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act). 
 64S An offence under section 18 of that Act (carrying a firearm with criminal intent). 
 64T An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c.28) (hostage-taking). 
 64U An offence under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c.36) (hijacking). 
 64V An offence under section 2 of that Act (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft). 
 64W An offence under section 3 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft). 
 64X An offence under section 4 of that Act (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles). 
 64Y An offence under section 105 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c.36) (ill-treatment of patients). 
 64Z An offence under section 1 of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (c.38) (prohibition of female circumcision). 
 64ZA An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) (torture). 
 64ZB An offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (causing death by dangerous driving). 
 64ZC An offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs). 
 64ZD An offence under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c.31) (endangering safety at aerodromes). 
 64ZE An offence under section 9 of that Act (hijacking of ships). 
 64ZF An offence under section 10 of that Act (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms). 
 64ZG An offence under section 11 of that Act (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety). 
 64ZH An offence under section 12 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation). 
 64ZI An offence under section 13 of that Act (offences involving threats). 
 64ZJ An offence under Part II of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/570) (offences relating to Channel Tunnel trains and the tunnel system). 
 64ZK An offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.39) (procuring). 
 64ZL An offence under section 9 of that Act (permitting girl to use premises for intercourse). 
 64ZM An offence under section 11 of that Act (trading in prostitution and brothel-keeping). 
 64ZN An offence under section 12 of that Act (allowing child to be in brothel). 
 64ZO An offence under section 13(9) of that Act (living on earnings of male prostitution etc.). 
 64ZP An offence under section 50A of that Act (racially-aggravated harassment). 
 64ZQ An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c.17) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving murder. 
 64ZR An offence under section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 (asp 13) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences as specified in Schedule 1 to that Act). 
 64ZS An offence under section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 7) (traffic in prostitution etc.). 
 64ZT An offence to which section 74 of that Act applies (offences aggravated by religious prejudice). 
 64ZU An offence under section 315 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 13) (ill-treatment and wilful neglect of mentally disordered person).'.—[Paul Goggins.]

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment No. 217, in
schedule 4, page 89, line 31, at end insert— 
 '64A Murder; 
 64B. Culpable homicide; 
 64C. Assault; 
 64D. Assault and robbery; 
 64E. Abduction; 
 64F. Plagium; 
 64G. Wrongful imprisonment; 
 64H. Threats of personal violence; 
 64I. Breach of the peace inferring personal violence; 
 64J. Wilful fireraising resulting in personal injury; 
 64K. Reckless fireraising resulting in personal injury; 
 64L. Mobbing and rioting; 
 64M. An offence under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937; 
 64N. An offence under section 16 of the Firearms Act 1968 (c.27) (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life). 
 64O. An offence under section 16A of that Act (possession of firearm with intent to cause fear of violence). 
 64P. An offence under section 17(1) of that Act (use of firearm to resist arrest). 
 64Q. An offence under section 17(2) of that Act (possession of firearm at time of committing or being arrested for offence specified in Schedule 1 to that Act). 
 64R. An offence under section 18 of that Act (carrying a firearm with criminal intent). 
 64S. An offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c.28) (hostage-taking). 
 64T. An offence under section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c.36) (hijacking). 
 64U. An offence under section 2 of that Act (destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft). 
 64V. An offence under section 3 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft). 
 64W. An offence under section 4 of that Act (offences in relation to certain dangerous articles). 
 64X. An offence under section 1 of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 (c.38) (prohibition of female circumcision); 
 64Y. An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) (torture); 
 64Z. An offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) (causing death by dangerous driving). 
 64ZA. An offence under section 3A of that Act (causing death by careless driving when under influence of drink or drugs). 
 64ZB. An offence under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (c.31) (endangering safety at aerodromes). 
 64ZC. An offence under section 9 of that Act (hijacking of ships). 
 64ZD. An offence under section 10 of that Act (seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms). 
 64ZE. An offence under section 11 of that Act (destroying fixed platforms or endangering their safety). 
 64ZF. An offence under section 12 of that Act (other acts endangering or likely to endanger safe navigation). 
 64ZG. An offence under section 13 of that Act (offences involving threats). 
 64ZH. An offence under section 51 or 52 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c.17) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences), other than one involving murder. 
 64ZI. An offence under section 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 (ASP 13) (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and related offences as specified in Schedule 1 to that Act.'.
 Government amendment No. 320.

Paul Goggins: Before the break, my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was reflecting on why it was I who was on my feet. I think that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) was reflecting on why his list had such merit and what differences there might be between it and the Government's list. Having had time to reflect on the matter, I decided that his list was good, but that the Government's was better. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree.
 The purpose of the amendments is to make it easy for sexual offences prevention orders to be made in England, Wales and Northern Ireland against offenders with a conviction for a violent offence in Scotland. It is necessary to introduce them to protect the public from serious sexual harm.

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to the Minister for his observations. Amendment No. 217 was suggested by the Law Society of Scotland, which has worked diligently to prepare a list. However, having heard what the Minister said about it, I am entirely content with his response.

Dominic Grieve: We should put on the record the meaning of plagium before we vote for the amendment. As an English lawyer, I confess that it is a term with which I am unfamiliar. The Solicitor-General kindly explained informally to me what it meant, although it left me none the wiser as to its origin. The Minister may be able to help the Committee by putting that on the record.

Paul Goggins: It will be helpful to members of the Committee to know that plagium means child abduction.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 314, in 
schedule 4, page 92, line 26, leave out '52' and insert '55'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 - SOPOs: variations, renewals and discharges

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 379, in
clause 106, page 54, line 43, at end insert— 
 '( ) a parent or guardian of any dependant aged under 18'

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 380, in
clause 116, page 61, line 26, at end insert— 
 '( ) a parent or guardian of any dependant aged under 18'.

Humfrey Malins: Forgive my hesitation, Mr. Gale. We have moved rapidly to clause 106 and to my amendment. We are dealing now with sexual offences prevention orders, and the particular issue of those who may apply to the court to vary such a prevention order. The amendment is merely a probing amendment; it would do nothing more than tidy up matters. Clearly, the defendant or chief officer of police can and properly should apply under the clause, but I wondered whether the parent or guardian of someone under the age of 18 who was subject to an order should be covered under subsection (2).

Paul Goggins: The amendments would add
''a parent or guardian of any dependant aged under 18''
 to the current list of those who can apply for a sexual offences prevention order, or foreign travel order, to be varied, renewed or discharged. It may reassure the hon. Member for Woking if I explain why his amendment is unnecessary. 
 First, our experience with sex offender orders suggests that they are rarely varied, renewed or discharged. Secondly, the foreign travel order is aimed specifically at paedophile sex tourists and would almost certainly never be used in relation to a young offender. Thirdly, in a small number of cases, where a young offender may wish to apply for an order to be varied, renewed, or discharged, the 
 application will no doubt be discussed and drawn up in consultation with the parents. Although the wording says that an order will be made by the defendant, it would ordinarily be made in conjunction with the parents. Now that I have given those three lines of assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins: Indeed I do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 315, in 
clause 106, page 55, line 41, after '2' insert 'or 20'.
 No. 316, in 
clause 106, page 55, line 42, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 107 - Interim SOPOs

Amendments made: No. 317, in 
clause 107, page 56, line 2, after '102(5)' insert 'or 103(1)'.
 No. 318, in 
clause 107, page 56, line 27, after '2A' insert 'or 20(4)(a)'.
 No. 319, in 
clause 107, page 56, line 28, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 - Sections 102 and 104 to 107: Scotland

Amendment made: No. 320, in 
clause 110, page 57, line 30, leave out 
 'an offence listed at paragraph 64' 
 and insert 
 'any offence listed at paragraphs 64 to 64ZU'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Offence: breach of SOPO or interim SOPO

Amendment made: No. 321, in 
clause 111, page 58, line 46, at end insert 
 'or, in Scotland, a probation order'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112 - Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 254, in
clause 112, page 59, line 8, leave out from 'way' to end of line 10 and insert 
 'that there will be a substantial risk to children outside the UK unless an order is made.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 256, in 
clause 121, page 63, line 31, leave out from 'acts,' to end of line 32 and insert 
 'there will be a substantial risk to children unless an order is made.'.
 Amendment No. 258, in 
clause 124, page 65, line 41, leave out 'just to do so,' and insert 
 'necessary for the purpose of protection'.

Annette Brooke: I shall not pursue the wording of the amendment. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary himself said earlier that banning someone from leaving the country is a serious step. For that reason I feel that we should debate that matter during Committee. I am not happy with the substituted wording that I put forward, but we should scrutinise it and consider whether the words ''reasonable cause'' provide an apposite standby. I shall not pursue amendment No. 256, because we shall consider and debate clause 121 later, at which time some general points will be picked up.
 Amendment No. 258 deals with something that was picked up by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It refers to clause 24 and would replace the words ''just to do so'' with 
''necessary for the purpose of protection''.
 The Home Affairs Committee said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights 
''has also expressed concern about the criteria for making an interim order, which does not require the court to satisfy itself that 'it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of protection' ''—
 hence the suggestion that those words be included at this stage. The Home Affairs Committee concluded: 
''We also believe that the grounds for making an interim RSHO should match more closely the grounds for a full order''.
 It suggested that some amendment be made—something along the lines of mine. I moved the amendment in order to hear what the Minister has to say on those two issues.

Paul Goggins: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady moved amendment No. 254. As the amendment suggests, there should be a substantial risk to children, and I hope that I can reassure her that the Bill provides all the tests that she requires. The police must have reasonable cause, based on the defendant's behaviour since his conviction for a sexual offence, to believe that it is necessary for a foreign travel order to be made. The hon. Lady may care to look at subsection (3)(b), which clearly says:
''the defendant's behaviour since the appropriate date makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.''
 The test that the amendment would insert is already provided for in the Bill. The same applies to amendment No. 256. 
 On amendment No. 258, it is difficult to balance the need for something immediate, in cases where there is an immediate threat to the welfare of a child, with the obvious need for firm proof in relation to a long-term order. The problem with using the test of necessity when seeking to make an interim order is that the test 
 may be too difficult to prove. That would mean a delay in obtaining the order, which might expose a child or children to risk from that offender in the intervening period. The purpose of the interim order, which has the lower test, is to provide us with power and protection immediately, so that we can go on to make the long-term order, which requires the higher test, later. I hope that the Committee will agree that the balanced approach of a slightly lower test for the interim order but a more rigorous test for the long-term order strikes the right balance between justice for the person involved and protection for children and the wider community.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Under-Secretary for his comments. I will withdraw the amendments. On his last point, it is difficult to find a balance, because there is still stigmatising involved with an interim order, and there could be fears that such an order could be implemented without that stricter test. However, I have had some reassurance from the Under-Secretary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 - Section 112: interpretation

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 113, page 59, line 23, leave out '16' and insert '18'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 16, in 
clause 113, page 59, line 24, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
 Amendment No. 17, in 
clause 113, page 59, line 34, leave out subsection (6).
 Amendment No. 18, in 
clause 114, page 60, line 4, after 'paragraphs', insert '5 to 9,'.
 Amendment No. 19, in 
clause 114, page 60, line 7, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 114, page 60, line 13, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
 Amendment No. 21, in 
clause 114, page 60, line 18, leave out '16' and insert '18'.

Hilton Dawson: I begin by commending my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the Government's work on foreign travel orders and the serious work undertaken to protect children abroad from the activities of sex offenders from this country.
 The amendments, which reflect the cross-party and consensual nature of much debate in Committee, were originally drafted by UNICEF. We should congratulate UNICEF on its ''end child exploitation'' campaign and its work across the world to protect children who are being exploited by the sex industry. 
 The amendments are an attempt to improve the clauses relating to foreign travel orders. A few weeks ago we had a substantial debate on clause 49, under which, commendably, the Government have brought in serious penalties for those convicted of paying for the sexual services of a child. If someone pays for a child prostitute under 13, they are liable to a sentence of life imprisonment. For someone of 14 or 15, the term is 14 years: for someone of 16 or 17, it is seven years. 
 We have debated that latter sentence, but I do not think that anyone would demur from the view that that is a substantial penalty for an extremely serious offence, which is a good thing. However, it is incongruous that the Government are prepared to bring forward substantial legislation—clause 112 and subsequent clauses—that protects 16 and 17-year-olds from being exploited in the sex industry in this country but that specifically excludes children who are in a similar position abroad. We should try to tighten up this legislation to ensure that we fully protect children living abroad. That point follows on from our earlier debate on the three-day rule for sex offenders going abroad. 
 If we were to accept the spirit of these amendments, we could ensure that someone who has a record of offences against 16 and 17-year-olds—and who might have served a substantial prison sentence in this country and since acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for an order to be made—is subject to a foreign travel order, and we could thereby prevent them from going abroad to indulge in sex tourism and to abuse children in developing countries. 
 We have a massive problem of child prostitution in this country, but we have a monstrous problem of child prostitution throughout the world: UNICEF estimates that, globally, 1 million children are abused in the sex industry. Massive poverty, and the desperate circumstances and huge dislocation of developing countries, make children extremely vulnerable. 
 I am very grateful for the support of other parties for these amendments. They are not wholly satisfactory: they were drafted some time ago. Fully to protect children under the age of 18 living abroad as well as in this country, we would need further amendments: for example, we would need to amend paragraph 26 of schedule 3. 
 I hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment. They are to be commended for the work that they have done to ensure that children under 18 are protected from abuse. The United Nations convention definition of a child as someone under the age of 18 must be supported, as must the same definition of a child in the Children Act 1989. 
 I moved the amendments because there is an urgent necessity to protect children. That has been expressed across the Committee Floor, and by the Government in this legislation. If we accept the spirit of this amendment, we will ensure not only that children under the age of 18 are protected from sexual exploitation in this country but that that protection 
 extends abroad so that children under 18 living in countries throughout the world are protected from the wicked and appalling activities of predatory sexual offenders from this country.

Dominic Grieve: I have great sympathy with the aim of the amendments, and shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about them.
 There is no doubt that the issue of protection poses a problem. As many of the acts listed in schedule 3 will be lawful with a person over the age of 16 in this country, there is a difficulty in marrying the intention behind the amendments of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) with the way in which clause 113 is drafted. The intention behind his amendments is correct. It is highly desirable that we should be protecting people under the age of 18 from predatory sexual activity by individuals from this country travelling abroad. If there were a way of achieving that, I should like to hear from the Minister what might be done. The age of 16 is not a satisfactory cut-off point. Given that, and my concern that it may be difficult to achieve such protection in the Bill, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre for his generous opening remarks about the spirit in which we are moving things forward and about the new provisions in these clauses. I join him in paying tribute to UNICEF for the important work that it does.
 I shall begin by underlining what was implicit in my hon. Friend's remarks: going abroad to seek out vulnerable children in order to abuse them is wicked and evil and we all deprecate it. There is no difference between any of our views in that regard. The Government have taken several steps to reinforce that view. Part 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which will be re-enacted through clause 73 of this Bill, was an important step. The new foreign travel orders are a second important step. Clause 87 will reduce the number of days a registered offender can intend to spend overseas before they are required to notify the police from the current eight days to three days. 
 I have some concerns about the implications of the amendments. First, it is important that the orders are understood for what they are: a way to target paedophiles. We are targeting those paedophiles who move abroad to seek out children—so-called paedophile sex tourists. They are people who travel abroad with the express purpose of sexually abusing young children. All the cases that we are aware of that involve a British citizen being prosecuted in a sex tourism destination have involved children under the age of 16. We emphasise that those people, who abuse young children in that way, are the target of the legislation. 
 There are other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to some of the technical and drafting difficulties that would occur if his amendments were successful. There are deeper issues too, and here I respond to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It would be difficult to interpret serious sexual harm in the context of the over-16s, bearing it in mind that serious sexual harm 
 means serious physical or psychological harm. For a foreign travel order to be taken out, it needs to be established that the offender intends to commit the equivalent of a schedule 3 offence abroad. Obviously, for children aged under 16, any sexual activity is covered by one of the offences in schedule 3. However, 16 and 17-year-olds can consent to most sexual activity—that is the nub of the issue. It would be difficult to ascertain for the purposes of the foreign travel order whether an offender intends to travel abroad to commit a sexual offence or to engage in consensual sexual activity with a person aged over the age of consent. The question of whether a person is moving abroad to abuse or to engage in consensual sexual activity would be much more difficult where 16 and 17-year-olds are concerned because, by definition, they are over the age of consent. With a child under the age of 16, there is no difficulty. 
 I reassure the Committee that that does not mean that those over 16 cannot be protected from British sex offenders who are travelling abroad. Where there is a risk of sexual offending against someone over 16, the police can, and already do, use the foreign travel notification requirements to inform the authorities abroad about an individual. Those provisions are already in place. They are used and they will be used in future where there is any fear in relation to anybody over 16. 
 Other technical and drafting amendments would be consequential on my hon. Friend's amendments, if they were included in the Bill. I hope that he will understand that our emphasis is on tackling the issue of people going from this country to target young children abroad. There would be serious difficulties if young people aged 16 and 17 were included in the provisions. According to the law of our land, such people are above the age of consent.

Hilton Dawson: I am disappointed by my hon. Friend's response. We have discussed this issue before. It is inappropriate to talk about the age of consent when we refer to young people who are being abused through prostitution. Consensual sexual relations does not enter into it—that is sexual abuse. Thanks to the Bill, we will have a substantial law in this country that makes it illegal to pay for the sexual services of 16 and 17-year-olds. I do not understand why we cannot extend that protection and deliver that equality to young people abroad.
 Anyone aged 16 or 17 who is involved in prostitution has not taken that on as a career choice. They have been abused through prostitution, and probably by many other means, for a lot longer. Many children working in the sex industry at that age in this country—and certainly in developing countries—are precisely the very young children to whom my hon. Friend referred. Those are children who have spent many years in the most appalling conditions being abused in the most appalling ways. I accept that we would need some more changes to the Bill than are included here. However, this is a chance of a generation to get the law on sexual offences right. 
 For the second time today, I am sorry that we are allowing a loophole in the legislation, through which the extremely resourceful, highly intelligent, but 
 utterly wicked and disgraceful people who want to abuse children, will slither and slide. 
 I have no option other than to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect further, come back to this matter on Report and strengthen a very good Bill by making it even more substantial. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 114 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Risk of sexual harm orders: applications, grounds and effect

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 219, in
clause 121, page 63, line 27, leave out 
 'it appears to the chief officer' 
 and insert 'he reasonably believes'.
 We are dealing with risk of sexual harm orders. Amendment No. 219 probes the Solicitor-General on whether the chief officer of police can act on a whim or fancy. The clause has the phrase: 
''it appears to the chief officer''.
 Normally, before someone goes to court with an application, they must have evidence of a problem that lies ahead. I would not want it to be thought that police officers would apply for an order under the clause as a matter of course simply because a person who had attended once or twice before was moving into the area. I hope that there would have to be just a little extra information in front of the chief officer before he made such an application—for example, some evidence that the proposed defendant had suggested that he was going to commit such an offence. 
 The amendment merely puts an extra burden on the chief officer of police to ensure that he does not act on a whim, but waits for slightly stronger evidence before he makes an application.

Harriet Harman: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, for distracting the Committee this morning by talking to officials during the debate. I am sorry about that.
 The amendment is one of five groups that, as the hon. Member for Woking said, probe the issues raised by clause 121 and subsequent clauses. Without trespassing on clause stand part issues, I thought it might be helpful if I explained the nature of the beast. The amendment would raise the threshold before a chief officer of police can apply for a risk of sexual harm order. The most appropriate analogy is with an antisocial behaviour order, in that an RSHO is a civil order, but breach of it is a criminal offence. I suppose it is a bit like an injunction—it is that sort of creature. It is a civil preventive order. 
 An application is made, in this case by the chief officer of police, and the court hears it. The person in respect of whom the order will be made then has their chance to say why they do not think that it should be made, to agree to it, or to say that they think that it should be made in different terms. The court would make the order if it thought it appropriate to do so, and breach of the order would be a criminal offence. 
 It would have helped to have discussed this first—I know I am not supposed to suggests amendments on my feet while doing my ministerial work—but it might have been better to call the person in question the respondent rather than the defendant, because the order is not a criminal measure. Those subject to it are not offenders who have been found guilty; they are respondents in respect of whom an order has been made.

Humfrey Malins: I am finding the Solicitor-General's comments very helpful. A little later, the clause states that the court can make an order ''if it is satisfied''. I imagine that that means satisfied on the balance of probabilities, as in a civil case, rather than satisfied such that the court is sure. It is more likely that a civil approach to the burden would be taken.

Harriet Harman: Yes, I imagine that the burden would start there, although the hon. Gentleman knows better than I that the boundaries between the civil and criminal standards of proof are more flexible now than in the olden days.
 The point is that the order is a civil order, and is more like an injunction, although a breach of it is a criminal offence. The amendment would ensure that a chief officer of police has a reasonable belief that the criteria in clause 121(1)(a) and (b) have been met before he applies for a risk of sexual harm order to be made against the defendant. Basically, hon. Gentleman seeks to raise the threshold before the chief officer can apply. We do not believe that that is necessary. It would not be a good idea, which is why we are resisting the amendment. There are enough safeguards for the respondent. Furthermore, it would not be necessary in practical terms. 
 Clause 121(1) provides that a chief officer of police may apply by complaint to a magistrates court for a risk of sexual harm order to be made against a person aged 18 or over if it seems to him that the defendant has on at least two previous occasions engaged in sexual activity communication with a child in a way specified under the clause and there is reasonable cause to believe that, as a result of those acts, an order is necessary. The wording of the clause mirrors that of the existing provisions for sex offender orders under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. There is no evidence that unjustifiable applications are being made because the test is too low. In any event, as will be seen under subsequent clauses, the magistrates court may not make a risk of sexual harm order unless it is satisfied in respect of the matters that are brought before it. I am advised that, since the case of McCann relating to ASBOs, the criminal standard of proof applies even though the order is a civil order. Is the hon. Gentleman willing to withdraw the amendment?

Humfrey Malins: I shall indeed do that. It is most helpful to know that the standard of proof will be the same as in a criminal trial. I should have known that. It just shows that even the most absurd amendment—I am not thinking of my own—can sometimes tease out interesting material. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 220, in
clause 121, page 63, line 29, leave out 'two occasions' and insert 'one occasion'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 221, in
clause 121, page 64, line 5, leave out 'two occasions' and insert 'one occasion'.

Humfrey Malins: I tabled the amendment as means of asking the Solicitor-General a question. I am slightly intrigued about why the defendant must be thought to have acted in a certain way on two previous occasions before such an application can be made. Could not a person who has carried out an act on one previous occasion give rise to a real need for the chief officer of police to make an application, if he is satisfied with other evidence? Would not one act be quite important on occasion?

Harriet Harman: With the previous amendment, the hon. Gentleman sought to make the set of clauses less draconian in relation to the orders. However, the amendment now under discussion would make the clause more draconian. If the amendment were made, instead of a course of conduct, conduct of the sort specified occurring on only one occasion could be enough to entitle the chief constable to apply to the court and for the court to make the order.
 The system should step in only if it is thought that a problem will repeat itself. If there had been just one incident that someone thought better of afterwards, or if it had been an out-of-the-blue incident that was not repeated, it would not be right to bring in the machinery of the order. A course of conduct, which needs only to be conduct carried out on two occasions, will be required to form the basis for the granting of the order. The order is not a criminal sanction, but it is important and we would not want it to be granted without a genuine need for it in order to stop ongoing behaviour. 
 Members of the Committee might know that the measure emerged from the Government's internet taskforce. I see the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who knows a great deal more about such matters than I do, looking over. Anyway, the idea is that the clause should refer to a course of conduct. We are reluctant to reduce it to one incident and make that sufficient to justify an order.

Humfrey Malins: I heard what the Solicitor-General had to say. However, I can envisage a situation in which an order is applied for because there is cause to believe that it should be made, and although the magistrates are satisfied that there is merit in the application, the order cannot be made unless there have been at least two incidents of the conduct complained of. On Report, it might be worth considering whether the
 clause should be amended, so that the number of occasions is omitted and the court can go ahead if it and the chief officer of police thinks that the order is necessary. It has been said that there is a similarity with antisocial behaviour order applications, but I do not think that the legislation for them requires that the conduct complained of must happen on more than one or two occasions.
 I am content that I have aired the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 255, in
clause 121, page 64, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendment No. 125. 
 Government amendment No. 126.

Annette Brooke: It will become apparent that I have read the Home Affairs Committee report. Amendment No. 255 picks up on the fact that the Committee stated that it was puzzled by why it was felt to be necessary to require these orders to be made for a fixed period of at least five years. Its final recommendation was that that requirement should be deleted from the Bill. It argued:
''The courts should be given discretion to make whatever length of order is needed to protect a child''.
 The Government amendments respond to the debate in the Home Affairs Committee. The key issue now is whether the Solicitor-General can convince hon. Members that there are good reasons for having a period of two years, rather than for deleting that entirely.

Harriet Harman: The Bill currently states that risk of sexual harm orders will run for five years. The hon. Lady's amendment follows the line that was suggested by the Home Affairs Committee—that these orders should have no minimum time period. The Government amendment that I am speaking to replaces five years with two years.
 An order can prohibit a defendant from doing anything if that is necessary to protect a particular child or group of children or children in general from harmful sexually explicit communication or conduct. Thus, a person might be prohibited from going to a particular area or swimming pool at a time when it is in use by schoolchildren; and if he had been using the internet to communicate with the child, he might be prohibited from using a computer. 
 As our amendment makes clear, we agree with the Home Affairs Committee that a minimum period of five years is excessive, given that these orders can be applied to someone with no criminal convictions. However, we prefer the proposal of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland that there should be a shorter minimum duration to the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation to drop the minimum duration entirely— 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Harriet Harman: We were discussing whether there should be a minimum length of time for risk of sexual harm orders and, if so, what the minimum length of time should be. I remind the Committee that the conduct must have happened on two occasions, so we need the order to last long enough for people to be satisfied that at least they have had a chance to see whether the behaviour has ended. Therefore, to have no minimum period is not acceptable. We accept that five years is too long and have suggested two years, which would bring the order into line with the minimum length of time for ASBOs. The term will be fixed, but not as long as five years. We ask the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) to withdraw her amendment and the Committee to support the Government's amendment to change the minimum time limit on the orders.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Solicitor-General for her reply. I thought that it was worth pursuing the matter, but I shall withdraw the amendment and support the Government.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 125, in 
clause 121, page 64, line 11, leave out '5' and insert '2'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 257, in
clause 121, page 64, line 17, at end add— 
 '(8) The use of Risk of Sexual Harm Orders (RHSOs) will be carefully monitored by the Home Office and the numbers of orders made will be reported annually to Parliament.'.
 The amendment reflects a further recommendation from the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We have already discussed some of the issues by drawing a comparison with ASBOs. I was not going to make such a comparison, but it has been made now. Because of the way in which the orders operate, with the proof having to be of criminal standard, and because there has been a lot of debate about ASBOs being difficult, there is a strong case for ensuring careful monitoring. There was an excellent monitoring and evaluation report on ASBOs, which was helpful for the future. 
 I also included in the amendment the idea that the numbers should be reported to Parliament annually. I am the first to say that numbers are not everything, but they nevertheless form a basis for debate. These orders are new, so there is a strong argument for having them monitored carefully by parliamentarians. I am not necessarily waiting for two-year evaluations of the whole picture, so an annual report would be useful. The question is whether that needs to be in the Bill or just a commitment.

Harriet Harman: The hon. Lady anticipates my response. The amendment does not need to be included in the Bill. I absolutely agree that what matters is putting legislation into practice. We cannot simply legislate and assume that everything will happen in the way we intend. We must consider
 everything closely. I therefore fully support the spirit of monitoring contained in this amendment and others. We all recognise that we focused too much on our own words, and insufficiently on what was happening out there.
 With that in mind, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will lead a ministerial committee to consider the ongoing implementation of all the measures in the Bill. We shall not simply legislate and then move on to another piece of Home Office legislation, although I am sure that there will be more legislation. We will stick with this issue. That ministerial group will undoubtedly give out information on how things are working and receive suggestions from hon. Members about what is going on in their area and reflecting how things are working in practice. The Select Committee on Home Affairs will be able to call on my hon. Friends to report on what is going on, and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary will be prepared to appear before it to give information. Hon. Members can ask parliamentary questions, and they will be told numbers straight off because they will have been collected. 
 We therefore agree with the spirit of the amendment. Any new creature such as this needs to be looked at in practice, but we do not need the requirement of the amendment in the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Solicitor-General for her commitment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 - RSHOs: variations, renewals and discharges

Amendment made: No. 126, in 
clause 123, page 65, line 17, leave out '5' and insert '2'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
 Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 124 to 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 - Offences with thresholds

Amendments made: No. 322, in 
clause 130, page 68, line 35, at end insert 
 '(a ''sentencing condition''). 
 ( ) Where an offence is listed if either a sentencing condition or a condition of another description is met, this section applies only to the offence as listed subject to the sentencing condition.'.
 No. 323, in 
clause 130, page 68, line 37, leave out 'such an offence' and insert 
 'an offence to which this section applies'.
 No. 324, in 
clause 130, page 68, line 40, before 'condition' insert 'sentencing'.
 No. 325, in 
clause 130, page 69, line 15, leave out from 'a' to 'this' and insert 'sentencing condition,'.—[The Solicitor-General]
 Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131 - Part 2: General interpretation

Amendment made: No. 326, in 
clause 131, page 70, leave out lines 11 and 12.—[The Solicitor-General.]
 Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 132 and 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Part 2: Northern Ireland

Harriet Harman: I beg to move amendment No. 327, in
clause 134, page 73, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(11) An Order in Council under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47) (provision dealing with certain reserved matters) which contains a statement that it is made only for purposes corresponding to those of Schedule (Procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences) to this Act— 
 (a) shall not be subject to subsections (3) to (9) of that section (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament), but 
 (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (12) In relation to any time when section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c.1) is in force (suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland)— 
 (a) the reference in subsection (11) above to section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47) shall be read as a reference to paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 (c.1) (legislation by Order in Council during suspension), and 
 (b) the reference in subsection (11)(a) above to subsections (3) to (9) of that section shall be read as a reference to paragraph 2 of that Schedule.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Government new clause 14. 
 Government new schedule 1.

Harriet Harman: The amendment, the new clause and the new schedule deliver on a commitment made by Lord Falconer and Baroness Scotland following points made by Lord Thomas of Gresford and Baroness Walmsley, which were that the substantive law has changed, yet some people will still be subject to the requirement for notification and on the register for matters that are no longer offences. Do we want people still to be on the register when the action that they were convicted of that led to them being on the register is not something that we regard as criminal activity any more? I am referring to consensual sexual intercourse between adult males. We do not want them to be on the register because we no longer regard that activity as a criminal offence.
 We need to have a procedure for removing people from the notification requirement in line with the substantive law. However, that is not as easy as looking through the computer database and striking 
 them off. In some cases, it was not necessary to distinguish between consensual and non-consensual activity. We do not want non-consensual activity not to be required to be continued to be notified, so we have had to consider matters on a case-by-case basis. The new schedule, the new clause and the amendment will set up a procedure. The Home Office will write to everyone and say that a new procedure has been set up. It will be proactive to that extent. If people want to stop being subject to the registration requirements and consider that they come within the provision, they can apply to the Home Secretary. 
 The Home Secretary will then cause inquiries to be made into whether or not the activity was non-consensual and whether it is no longer a criminal offence. He will then decide whether such people can stop being on the register. They will have a right of appeal against his decision. I have not explained matters in enormous detail. The application can be appealed to the High Court, but not thereafter. However, the aim of the provision is clear. The High Court would not be able to hear all evidence. We must bear it in mind that the issues involved will be delicate and we would not want to create a situation whereby people who had been engaged in sexual activity as the victim had to go through all the information. Such matters would be carried out in writing. 
 The idea is to respond to the concern of Lord Thomas and Baroness Walmsley to deliver on the promises made by Lord Falconer and Baroness Scotland and set up a workable and sensible procedure, which is up to date with the substantive law.

Annette Brooke: I welcome the Minister's words. My colleagues in the House of Lords will be pleased with the proposals that have been brought forward. The procedure sounds complicated and I do not wish to make any comments on it at this stage. However, I am sure that it will be considered carefully.
 The Solicitor-General made the point well about the difficulty in distinguishing between consensual and non-consensual sex. I was convinced by the argument, but I was a little dismayed about some of the procedures people will have to go through. I thank the Government for their response.

Neil Gerrard: I should like to mention the new clauses briefly. I raised this matter on Second Reading, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be aware. I am pleased with what has been done. Under the provision, there will not be huge numbers of cases dealt with. It will apply to a relatively small number of people who no longer need to be on the register because they are not a danger. The whole point of the register is to ensure that someone who is a danger, or will put other people at risk, is kept on it.
 On reading the new schedule, I did not think that the procedure was so complicated. I understand why it is necessary for there to be such a procedure—it is for precisely the reasons my right hon. and learned Friend gave in introducing the debate. We cannot simply assume that someone should be removed. We must 
 ensure that we do not remove somebody from the register if they were put on it for a non-consensual act. 
 I was pleased by what my right hon. and learned Friend said about being proactive, so that people will be informed about removing themselves from the register and making an application. That is a positive part of dealing with such things. I thank her for what she said and for responding to the concerns that were raised in the House of Lords, and by me and other hon. Members on Second Reading.

Chris Bryant: Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General on the proposals in the new clauses. I should like to ask a couple of brief questions.
 First, I presume that there are no recent convictions leading to sentences that people are still serving and that there is nobody still in the pipeline, as it were, who needs to be cleared out. Secondly, it is theoretically possible that at the end of the process the identity of somebody who is being taken off the register might inadvertently become public knowledge. There would be a new injustice if a local newspaper or community suddenly became aware that somebody had been taken off the register. Although that may be good for that person, there may be a kind of no-smoke-without-fire situation and the individual may find themselves subject to suspicions in the local community. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could comment on the process relating to keeping such matters confidential, especially towards the final stages.

Dominic Grieve: I add my welcome to the proposals. The Government have kept to the undertaking that they made.
 I was slightly surprised by the ponderous nature of the procedure to be gone through. It would useful to know whether the Solicitor-General thinks that in reality there would be a great problem. 
 I accept that certain offences would cover both non-consensual and consensual activities, but I would have hoped at least that the record of conviction made it clear, without too much difficulty, into which category such offences fell. If that might cause a major problem, it would be helpful to hear about it from the Solicitor-General. Frankly, I would be surprised if that were so, because the courts have always made a clear differentiation between those two things, both in sentencing remarks and in the sentences that are passed.

Harriet Harman: I do not think that it would be difficult to find out. It would be possible and necessary to find out. The procedure is not at all complex; it is very simple and straightforward and it starts with proaction. However, there has to be a procedure because there has to be a case-by-case examination. The person will simply receive a letter setting out the new procedure and the Home Office will issue a simple application form, which the person will sign to make the application. It will be clear where it is to be sent. Then there will be a confidential check-up to look at the sources of information and to make sure that the offence was not non-consensual. It will
 not be difficult to find that out. Any removal from the register will be confidential. There is no intention to publicise; it would be wrong to do so.
 I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who raised the issue in the House. We are delivering. 
 Some 150 to 300 people might fall into that category. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) raised the question of whether there might be people in the pipeline—people who are in prison, or who are going to prison, for offences that would be decriminalised under the Bill. In practice—and it is an informal process—once the police and the prosecutors anticipate that a criminal activity is, with all-party agreement, about to become a non-criminal activity, somehow it becomes in the public interest not to prosecute. The criminal justice system anticipates where we are going. Without jumping the gun or doing anything wrong, it has to decide which cases to prosecute and which not to prosecute. The system would be unlikely to prosecute an offence that was to be decriminalised because it would not be in the public interest.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. and learned friend is very helpful, but it sounds as though she is saying, ''I think that'' and ''I suspect that'' and is not sure whether people might fall into such categories. My own attempts at research to find out whether there have been in any such cases over the past two years suggest that there have been. However, perhaps she has further information.

Harriet Harman: I undertake to look into that and see whether I can write to my hon. Friend and Committee members to let them know whether there is more information on the matter.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 134, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 135 and 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 - Minor and consequential amendments

Harriet Harman: I beg to move amendment No. 328, in
schedule 5, page 93, line 20, at end insert— 
 'Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12) 
 1 In Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (offences to which special provisions of that Act apply), for the entry relating to offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) substitute— 
 ''Any offence against a child or young person under any of sections 1 to 43, 49 to 55, 58 to 62, 68 and 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or any attempt to commit such an offence. 
 Any offence under section 63 or 64 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the intended offence was an offence against a child or young person, or any attempt to commit such an offence.'' 
 Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c.67) 
 2 (1) Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences referred to in section 3 of that Act) is amended as follows. 
 (2) Before subparagraph (a) insert— 
 ''(za) rape and buggery (offences under the law of Northern Ireland);''. 
 (3) In subparagraph (a), omit ''rape'' and ''buggery''. 
 (4) In subparagraph (b), after paragraph (xii) insert— 
 ''(xiii) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.'' 
 Army Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz.2 c.18) 
 3 In section 70(4) of the Army Act 1955 (person not to be charged with an offence committed in the United Kingdom where corresponding civil offence is within the subsection)— 
 (a) omit ''or rape'', and 
 (b) after ''International Criminal Court Act 2001'' insert ''or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)''. 
 Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz 2.c.19) 
 4 In section 70(4) of the Air Force Act 1955 (person not to be charged with an offence committed in the United Kingdom where corresponding civil offence is within the subsection)— 
 (a) omit ''or rape'', and 
 (b) after ''International Criminal Court Act 2001'' insert ''or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)''.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 329 to 351.

Harriet Harman: The amendments simply make minor and consequential amendments to, and repeal provisions in, other legislation. They arise from changes made under the Bill.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 329, in 
schedule 5, page 93, line 23, leave out 
 ', 41 to 43, 45, 46A and' 
 and insert 'and 41 to'.
 No. 330, in 
schedule 5, page 93, line 24, at end insert— 
 'Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53) 
 5 In section 48(2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (courts-martial not to have jurisdiction as regards certain offences committed in the United Kingdom)— 
 (a) omit ''or rape'', and 
 (b) before ''committed on shore'' insert ''or an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape)''.'.
 No. 331, in 
schedule 5, page 94, line 4, at end insert— 
 'Firearms Act 1968 (c.27) 
 6 In Schedule 1 to the Firearms Act 1968 (offences to which section 17(2) of that Act applies), for paragraph 6 substitute— 
 ''6. Offences under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003— 
 (a) section 1 (rape); 
 (b) section 3 (assault by penetration); 
 (c) section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (d) section 6 (rape of a child under 13); 
 (e) section 7 (assault of a child under 13 by penetration); 
 (f) section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (g) section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (h) section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.'' '.
 No. 332, in 
schedule 5, page 94, line 22, leave out paragraph 13 and insert— 
 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53) 
 7 In section 7 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (limitations on rehabilitation under that Act), in subsection (2), for paragraph (bb) substitute— 
 ''(bb) in any proceedings under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or on appeal from any such proceedings;''.'.
 No. 333, in 
schedule 5, page 94, line 25, leave out paragraph 14 and insert— 
 '(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 1 (meaning of ''rape''), omit subsection (2). 
 (3) In section 7 (citation, interpretation etc.)— 
 (a) for subsection (2) substitute— 
 ''(2) In this Act— 
 (a) ''a rape offence'' means any of the following— 
 (i) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape); 
 (ii) an offence under section 3 of that Act (assault by penetration); 
 (iii) an offence under section 5 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (iv) an offence under section 6 of that Act (rape of a child under 13); 
 (v) an offence under section 7 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration); 
 (vi) an offence under section 9 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (vii) an offence under section 32 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (viii) an offence under section 33 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (ix) an attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (i) to (vii); 
 (x) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence or an attempt to commit such an offence. 
 (b) the use in any provision of the word ''man'' without the addition of the word ''boy'' does not prevent the provision applying to any person to whom it would have applied if both words had been used, and similarly with the words ''woman'' and ''girl''.''; 
 (b) omit subsection (3).'.
 No. 334, in 
schedule 5, page 94, line 32, leave out paragraph 16 and insert— 
 'Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17) 
 8 In section 1 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (attacks and threats of attacks on protected persons)— 
 (a) in subsection (1)(a)— 
 (i) omit ''rape,''; 
 (ii) after ''Explosive Substances Act 1883'' insert ''or an offence listed in subsection (1A)''; 
 (b) after subsection (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) The offences mentioned in subsection (1)(a) are— 
 (a) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, rape; 
 (b) an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; 
 (c) an offence under section 5 of that Act, where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (d) an offence under section 6 or 7 of that Act; 
 (e) an offence under section 9 of that Act, where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (f) an offence under section 32 of that Act, where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (g) an offence under section 33 of that Act, where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.'' 
 Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26) 
 9 (1) Schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (offences for the purposes of that Act) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In paragraph 3, after ''Rape'' insert ''under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland''. 
 (3) For paragraph 9 substitute— 
 ''9. An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003— 
 (a) sections 1 or 3 (rape, assault by penetration); 
 (b) section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (c) section 6 or 7 (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration); 
 (d) section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (e) section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (f) section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.'' '.
 No. 335, in 
schedule 5, page 94, line 36, at end insert— 
 'Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1908 (N.I. 27)) 
 10 In Article 8 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (limitations on rehabilitation under that Order), in paragraph (2), for subparagraph (bb) substitute— 
 ''(bb) in any proceedings under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or on appeal from any such proceedings;''.'.
 No. 336, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 2, leave out paragraph 18 and insert— 
 '(1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 103 (evidence of persons under 14 in committal proceedings), in subsection (2)(c), after ''the Protection of Children Act 1978'' insert ''or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''. 
 (3) In Schedule 7 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 18.'.
 No. 337, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 5, leave out paragraphs 19 to 21 and insert— 
 'Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c.48) 
 19 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (offences excluded from early release provisions), after the entry relating to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) insert— 
 Sections 1 and 3 (rape, assault by penetration). 
 Section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section. 
 Sections 6 and 7 (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration). 
 Section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused. 
 Section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section. 
 Section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.'' 
 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) 
 20 (1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 80(7) (sexual offences for purposes of compellability of spouse), after ''the Protection of Children Act 1978'' insert ''or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''. 
 (3) In Schedule 1A (specific arrestable offences), after paragraph 25 insert— 
 26. An offence under— 
 (a) section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual activity in public lavatory); 
 (b) section 68 of that Act (exposure); 
 (c) section 69 of that Act (voyeurism); 
 (d) section 71 of that Act (intercourse with an animal); or 
 (e) section 72 of that Act (sexual penetration of a corpse).'' 
 (4) In Part 2 of Schedule 5 (serious arrestable offences), after the entry relating to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (c.66) insert— 
 16. Section 1 (rape). 
 17. Section 3 (assault by penetration). 
 18. Section 5 (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section. 
 19. Section 6 (rape of a child under 13). 
 20. Section 7 (assault of a child under 13 by penetration). 
 21. Section 9 (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused. 
 22. Section 32 (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section. 
 23. Section 33 (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused.'' '.
 No. 338, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 14, leave out paragraph 22 and insert— 
 '(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 32 (evidence through television links), in subsection (2)(c), after ''the Protection of Children Act 1978'' insert ''or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''. 
 (3) In section 160(1) (possession of indecent photograph of child), at the beginning insert ''Subject to subsection (1A),''.'.
 No. 339, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 17, leave out paragraph 23 and insert— 
 'Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53) 
 23 In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), in subsection (2)(da), for ''Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997'' substitute ''Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''.'.
 No. 340, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 20, leave out paragraph 24 and insert— 
 'In section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (offences to which that Act applies)— 
 (a) after paragraph (d) insert— 
 ''(da) any offence under any of the provisions of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 65, 66, 67 or 71;''; 
 (b) in paragraph (e) for ''(d)'' substitute ''(da)''.'.
 No. 341, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 23, leave out paragraph 25 and insert— 
 '(1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 25 (no bail if previous conviction for certain offences), for subsection (2)(d) and (e) substitute— 
 ''(d) rape under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland; 
 (e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape); 
 (f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape); 
 (g) an offence under section 3 of that Act (assault by penetration); 
 (h) an offence under section 5 of that Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (i) an offence under section 6 of that Act (rape of a child under 13); 
 (j) an offence under section 7 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration); 
 (k) an offence under section 9 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (l) an offence under section 32 of that Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (m) an offence under section 33 of that Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (n) an attempt to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (d) to (m).'' 
 (3) Omit sections 142 to 144. 
 (4) In Schedule 10 (consequential amendments) omit paragraphs 26 and 35(2) and (4).'.
 No. 342, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 29, at end insert— 
 'Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.39) 
 11 In section 5(6) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (which relates to construing the expression ''a like offence''), after paragraph (c) insert ''or 
 (cc) any of sections 10 to 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;''.'.
 No. 343, in 
schedule 5, page 95, line 31, leave out paragraph 26 and insert— 
 'Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (c.53) 
 26 In section 11 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 (approval by parliament of certain alterations to the Tariff or provisions of the Scheme)— 
 (a) in subsection (3)(d), after ''rape'' insert ''or an offence under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''; 
 (b) after subsection (8) insert— 
 ''(9) In subsection (3) ''rape'', in relation to anything done in England and Wales, means an offence under section 1 or 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.'' 
 Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c.29) 
 26A In the Schedule to the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (sexual offences for the purposes of that Act), in paragraph 1— 
 (a) for subparagraph (1)(b) substitute— 
 ''(b) an offence under any of sections 1 to 13, 15 and 17 to 28 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.''; 
 (b) in subparagraph (2), for ''In subparagraph (1)(a), subparagraphs (i), (iv), (v) and (vi) do'' substitute ''Subparagraph (1)(b) does''. 
 Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (c.39) 
 26B In the Schedule to the Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (sexual offences for the purposes of that Act)— 
 (a) after paragraph 5 insert— 
 ''5A. Any offence under any provision of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 65, 66, 67 or 71.''; 
 (b) in paragraph 6, for ''1 to 5'' substitute ''5 and 5A''.'.
 No. 344, in 
schedule 5, page 96, line 31, at end insert— 
 'Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) 
 30A (1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 35 (cross examination of child witnesses), in subsection (3)(a), after subparagraph (v) insert ''or 
 (vi) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;''. 
 (3) In section 62 (meaning of ''sexual offence'' etc.),for subsection (1) substitute— 
 ''(1) In this Part ''sexual offence'' means any offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.'' '.
 No. 345, in 
schedule 5, page 96, line 33, at beginning insert— 
 '(1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 91 (power to detain offenders under 18 convicted of certain offences), for subsection (1)(b) and (c) substitute— 
 ''(b) an offence under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in this section, ''the 2003 Act'') (sexual assault); or 
 (c) an offence under section 14 of the 2003 Act (child sex offences committed by children or young persons); or 
 (d) an offence under section 27 of the 2003 Act (sexual activity with a child family member); or 
 (e) an offence under section 28 of the 2003 Act (inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity).'' 
 (3) In section 109 (life sentence for second serious offence), in subsection (5), after paragraph (f) insert— 
 ''(fa) an offence under section 1 or 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (in this section, ''the 2003 Act'') (rape, assault by penetration); 
 (fb) an offence under section 5 of the 2003 Act (causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent), where the activity caused involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (fc) an offence under section 6 or 7 of the 2003 Act (rape of a child under 13, assault of a child under 13 by penetration); 
 (fd) an offence under section 9 of the 2003 Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (3)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (fe) an offence under section 32 of the 2003 Act (sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder), where the touching involved penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section; 
 (ff) an offence under section 33 of the 2003 Act (causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder to engage in sexual activity), where an activity involving penetration within subsection (4)(a) to (d) of that section was caused; 
 (fg) an attempt to commit an offence within any of paragraphs (fa) to (ff);''. 
 (4) In section 161 (definition of ''sexual offence'' etc.),in subsection (2)— 
 (a) after paragraph (f) insert— 
 ''(fa) an offence under any provision of Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 except section 54, 55 or 67;''; 
 (b) in paragraph (g), for ''(a) to (f)'' substitute ''(f) and (fa)''. 
 (5)'. 
 No. 346, in 
schedule 5, page 96, line 33, leave out from '9' to end.
 No. 347, in 
schedule 5, page 96, line 36, leave out paragraph 32.
 No. 348, in 
schedule 5, page 97, line 2, leave out paragraph 33 and insert— 
 '33 (1) The Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 is amended as follows. 
 (2) Omit sections 39 and 66. 
 (3) In section 68 (sexual and violent offenders for the purposes of risk assessment etc.),in subsection (2), for ''Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997'' substitute ''Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''. 
 (4) In section 69 (duties of local probation boards in connection with victims of certain offences), in subsection (8)(b), for ''Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997'' substitute ''Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003''. 
 (5) In Schedule 4 (offences against children for the purposes of disqualification orders)— 
 (a) in paragraph 1, for subparagraph (m) substitute— 
 ''(m) an offence under any of sections 6 to 28 and 49 to 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (offences against children).''; 
 (b) in paragraph 2, for subparagraph (n) substitute— 
 ''(n) an offence under any of sections 1 to 5, 32 to 43, 54, 55, 58 to 62, 68 and 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.''; 
 (c) in paragraph 3, after subparagraph (s) insert— 
 ''(sa) he commits an offence under section 63 or 64 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (committing an offence or trespassing with intent to commit a sexual offence) in a case where the intended offence was an offence against a child.'' 
 (6) Omit Schedule 5.'.
 No. 349, in 
schedule 5, page 97, line 17, leave out paragraphs 35 and 36 and insert— 
 'Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (c.29) 
 12 (1) Schedule 2 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (lifestyle offences: England and Wales) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In paragraph 4, for subparagraph (2) substitute— 
 ''(2) An offence under any of sections 58 to 60 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking for sexual exploitation).'' 
 (3) For paragraph 8 substitute— 
 ''Prostitution and child sex 
 8 (1) An offence under section 33 or 34 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (keeping or letting premises for use as a brothel). 
 (2) An offence under any of the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003— 
 (a) section 15 (arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence); 
 (b) section 50 (causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography); 
 (c) section 51 (controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography); 
 (d) section 52 (arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography); 
 (e) section 54 (causing or inciting prostitution for gain); 
 (f) section 55 (controlling prostitution for gain).'''.
 No. 350, in 
schedule 5, page 97, line 35, at end insert— 
 'Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) 
 39A In Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, in paragraph 2(d)— 
 (a) omit subparagraph (x), 
 (b) omit ''or'' at the end of subparagraph (xi), 
 (c) at the end of subparagraph (xii) insert ''or 
 (xiii) under section 90, 91, 95, 98, 102, 106, 107, 112, 116, 121, 123 or 124 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003,''.'.
 No. 351, in 
schedule 5, page 98, line 1, leave out from '(a)' to 'and' in line 2.—[The Solicitor-General.]
 Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 - Repeals and revocations

Harriet Harman: I beg to move amendment No. 352, in
schedule 6, page 98, line 21, at end insert— 
 'Visiting Forces Act 1952 (c.67) 
 In the Schedule, in paragraph 1(a) the words ''rape, buggery''; paragraph 1(b)(viii). 
 Army Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c.18) In section 70(4), the words ''or rape''.'. 
 Air Force Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c.19) In section 70(4), the words ''or rape''.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 353 and 355 to 371.

Harriet Harman: These amendments repeal provisions in other legislation. They arise from changes that the Bill makes to existing sexual offences legislation.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 353, in 
schedule 6, page 98, line 25, column 2, leave out from 'to' to '47' in line 28.
 No. 355, in 
schedule 6, page 98, line 29, at end insert— 
 'Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53) 
 In section 48(2), the words ''or rape''.'. 
 No. 356, in 
schedule 6, page 98, line 43, at end insert— 
 'Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c.71) 
 Section 48.'. 
 No. 357, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 9, at end insert— 
 'Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17) 
 In section 1(1)(a), the word ''rape,''. 
 Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (c.26) 
 In section 4(1)(a), the word ''11,''. 
 In Schedule 1, paragraph 11.'.
 No. 358, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 10, column 2, at beginning insert— 
 'In section 103(2)(c), the words from ''the Indecency with Children Act 1960'' to ''1977 or''. 
 In Schedule 1, paragraphs 23, 27 and 32.'.
 No. 359, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 11, at end insert— 
 'Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (c.47) 
 In section 4(5), paragraph (a) and the word ''and'' immediately after it.'.
 No. 360, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 15, at end insert— 
 'Criminal Justice Act 1982 (c.48) 
 In Schedule 1, paragraph 2, the crossheading immediately before paragraph 12, and paragraphs 12 to 14.'.
 No. 361, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 30, at end insert— 
 'Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) 
 In section 80(7), the words from ''the Sexual Offences Act 1956'' to ''1977 or''. 
 In Schedule 1A, paragraph 4 and the crossheading immediately before it. 
 In Part 1 of Schedule 5, paragraphs 4 and 6 to 8. 
 In Part 2 of Schedule 5, paragraph 2 and the crossheading immediately before it. 
 In Part 1 of Schedule 6, paragraph 9.'.
 No. 362, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 31, column 2, at beginning insert— 
 'Section 3.'.
 No. 363, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 35, at end insert— 
 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.33) 
 In section 32(2)(c), the words from ''the Sexual Offences Act 1956'' to ''1977 or''.'.
 No. 364, in 
schedule 6, page 99, leave out lines 37 and 38.
 No. 365, in 
schedule 6, page 99, line 40, at end insert— 
 'Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c.25) 
 Section 56(2)(a). 
 Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 (c.29) 
 In the Schedule, paragraph 1(1)(a). 
 Sexual Offences (Protected Material) Act 1997 (c.39) 
 In the Schedule, paragraphs 1 to 4.'. 
 No. 366, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 17, column 2, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 36 and'.
 No. 367, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 23, at end insert— 
 'Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c.23) 
 In section 35(3)(a), subparagraphs (i) to (iv).'. 
 No. 368, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 24, at beginning insert— 
 'Section 161(2)(a) to (e).'.
 No. 369, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 28, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 4, paragraphs 1(c) to (i), 2(g) to (m) and 3(b) to (r).'.
 No. 370, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 39, at end insert— 
 'Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) 
 In Schedule 2, in paragraph (2)(d), subparagraph (x) and the word ''or'' at the end of subparagraph (xi).'. 
 No. 371, in 
schedule 6, page 100, line 40, column 2, leave out from '(a)' to end of line 41.—[The Solicitor-General.]
 Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Extent, saving etc.

Amendment made: No. 372, in 
clause 139, page 74, line 21, after '48' insert 'to 56, 58'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
 Clause 139, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 14 - Abolished homosexual offences

'Schedule (Procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences) (procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences) has effect.'.—[Paul Goggins.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 15 - Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification

'(1) This section applies to information notified to the police under— 
 (a) section 84, 85 or 86, or 
 (b) section 2(1) to (3) of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51). 
 (2) A person within subsection (3) may, for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences under this Part, supply information to which this section applies to— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) a Northern Ireland Department, or 
 (c) a person providing services to the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department in connection with a relevant function, 
 for use for the purpose of verifying the information. 
 (3) The persons are— 
 (a) a chief officer of police (in Scotland, a chief constable), 
 (b) the Police Information Technology Organisation, 
 (c) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, 
 (d) the Director General of the National Crime Squad. 
 (4) In relation to information supplied under subsection (2) to any person, the reference to verifying the information is a reference to— 
 (a) checking its accuracy by comparing it with information held— 
 (i) where the person is the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department, by him or it in connection with the exercise of a relevant function, or 
 (ii) where the person is within subsection (2)(c), by that person in connection with the provision of services referred to there, and 
 (b) compiling a report of that comparison. 
 (5) Subject to subsection (6), the supply of information under this section is to be taken not to breach any restriction on the disclosure of information (however arising or imposed). 
 (6) This section does not authorise the doing of anything that contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29). 
 (7) This section does not affect any power existing apart from this section to supply information. 
 (8) In this section— 
 ''Northern Ireland Department'' means, the Department for Employment and Learning, the Department of the Environment or the Department for Social Development; 
 ''relevant function'' means— 
 (a) a function relating to social security, child support, employment or training, 
 (b) a function relating to passports, 
 (c) a function under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52) or Part 2 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/154 (N.I. 1)).'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 16.

Paul Goggins: I think that I can promise that we will slow the pace down just a little—for a short time at least.
 New clauses 15 and 16 introduce a new power to enable information notified by sex offenders under part 2 of the Bill to be checked against details held by other specified Government agencies. That will assist the police in ensuring that offenders are notifying the correct information. 
 There is legitimate public concern that it should be ensured that sex offenders comply with registration requirements. As Committee members know, there is a new violent and sex offenders register—ViSOR—which will significantly improve the information on dangerous offenders that is available to the police. It is important that we include in this Bill the necessary 
 powers to make full use of ViSOR technology when it becomes available early next year. These new clauses provide us with such powers. 
 New clause 15 provides a power for the police and other law enforcement agencies to supply the dates of birth, names, addresses and national insurance numbers of sex offenders to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the United Kingdom Passport Service, the Department for Work and Pensions and their equivalents in Northern Ireland to check the accuracy of the information that is provided. We have identified these particular agencies because we believe that the majority of sex offenders will provide details when they apply for a new passport or to renew one, for a driving licence, or for a social security benefit or pension. 
 New clause 16 provides for the report that is compiled under new clause 15 to be provided to the police and other law enforcement agencies. They use that information for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences. I have no doubt that verification will be an important tool for the police, who will of course continue to verify details in person, but checking the records held on ViSOR against those held by the various bodies I have mentioned will bring added benefits, in that all offenders' details can be checked regularly without imposing additional burdens on the police or the offender. 
 It is important to assure the Committee that at all stages of the verification procedure the information will be handled in the strictest confidence. We are exploring the possibility that the information supplied by the police could be encrypted and communicated directly with computer systems in the DVLA, the Passport Service and the Department for Work and Pensions. I assure the Committee that nothing can be done under the new clause that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16 - Part 2: Supply of information by Secretary of State etc.

'(1) A report compiled under section [Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification] may be supplied by— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, 
 (b) a Northern Ireland Department, or 
 (c) a person within section [Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification](2)(c), 
 to a person within subsection (2). 
 (2) The persons are— 
 (a) a chief officer of police (in Scotland, a chief constable), 
 (b) the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, 
 (c) the Director General of the National Crime Squad. 
 (3) Such a report may contain any information held— 
 (a) by the Secretary of State or a Northern Ireland Department in connection with the exercise of a relevant function, or 
 (b) by a person within section [Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification](2)(c) in connection with the provision of services referred to there. 
 (4) Where such a report contains information within subsection (3), the person within subsection (2) to whom it is supplied— 
 (a) may retain the information, whether or not used for the purposes of the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of an offence under this Part, and 
 (b) may use the information for any purpose related to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences (whether or not under this Part), but for no other purpose. 
 (5) Subsections (5) to (8) of section [Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification] apply in relation to this section as they apply in relation to section [Part 2: supply of information to Secretary of State etc. for verification].'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Anonymity of suspects and defendants in certain cases

'(1) Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, no matter relating to that person shall be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person who is alleged to have committed the offence, until and if that person is charged. 
 (2) If any matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of subsection (1), the following persons, namely— 
 (a) in the case of a publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical; 
 (b) in the case of any other publication, the person who publishes it; and 
 (c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme, any body corporate which is engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper, 
 shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 8Encrypted data and indecent images of children

New clause 8 - Encrypted data and indecent images of children

'(1) This section applies to anyone who has been convicted of an offence to which Schedule 3 of this Act applies. 
 (2) Where a police officer, in pursuance of a warrant granted under section 4 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37), discovers protected information, he shall be entitled to apply to a senior officer of the police for a disclosure notice. 
 (3) Where a disclosure notice has been made, the effect of that notice shall be to require an offender to make disclosure of the information in an intelligible form. 
 (4) A person subject to a disclosure notice under subsection (3) above shall be taken to have complied with that notice if he makes, instead, a disclosure of any key to the protected information that is in his possession. 
 (5) Where a person is subject to a disclosure notice under subsection (3) above and— 
 (a) that person is not in possession of the information, 
 (b) that person is incapable, without the use of a key that is not in his possession, of obtaining access to the information and of disclosing it in an intelligible form, or 
 (c) the disclosure notice can be complied with only by the disclosure of a key to the information. 
 the effect of the disclosure notice is that he shall be required to make a disclosure of the key to the protected information in his possession. 
 (6) Where a senior police officer is asked to make a disclosure notice under subsection (2) above he shall consider whether the protected information is likely to include indecent images of children, and shall only make a notice where he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. 
 (7) Where an offender, subject to a disclosure notice, fails to meet the duty placed upon him in subsections (3) to (5) above, he is liable— 
 (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; 
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years. 
 (8) In this section— 
 ''a senior police officer'' shall mean an officer of at least the rank of superintendent. 
 ''protected information'' has the same meaning as in section 56(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23). 
 ''key'' has the same meaning as in section 56(1) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23).'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Beresford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Notification of requirements for relevant offenders convicted under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—
'(1) Where an offender commits an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) and the court is satisfied that the protected information is likely to contain indecent images of children, then the offender shall be subject to the notification requirements under Part 2 of this Act as though he were convicted of an offence within the meaning of section 81 of this Act. 
 (2) In this section ''indecent images of children'' shall have the same definition as in section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c.37).'.
 New clause 10—Disqualification from working with children— 
'(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43) an individual— 
 (a) who is convicted of any offence under Part 1 of this Act, and 
 (b) who receives a qualifying sentence 
 is, subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, disqualified from working with children. 
 (2) Where an individual believes that he should not be disqualified from working with children then he shall, at the time of advancing a plea of mitigation, apply to the court for a declaration that he is not disqualified. 
 (3) Where a court hears an application from an individual under subsection (2) above— 
 (a) it shall hear representation from both the individual and the prosecution, and 
 (b) it shall only declare a person is not disqualified to work with children if, having regard to all the circumstances, he is satisfied that the individual is unlikely to commit any further offence against a child. 
 (4) Where a court does declare that a person is not disqualified from working with children— 
 (a) it shall say in open court the reasons for making this declaration; and 
 (b) the provisions of subsection (1) will not apply to the individual named in the declaration. 
 (5) For the purposes of this section ''a qualifying sentence'' shall mean— 
 (a) a term of imprisonment of at least twelve months; 
 (b) a community rehabilitation order of twenty-four or more months duration; 
 (c) a community punishment order of one hundred and twenty or more hours duration; 
 (d) a community rehabilitation and punishment order, where the rehabilitation order component is of at least eighteen months' duration, and the punishment order component is of at least sixty hours duration. 
 (6) A person who is disqualified from working with children under this Act shall be disqualified from working with children for the purposes of section 28 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43).'.

Paul Beresford: If I was at the dentist's looking at the clock, I would say ''By the skin of my teeth'', but that would be inappropriate.
 Most members of the Committee will be aware of where I am coming from, particularly the Under-Secretary. I was with him when he went to New Scotland Yard and saw the team looking at encrypted video information and so on. We all heard a blast from one particular police officer who was absolutely furious because she could not untangle some encrypted information. She was pointing out something that many of us are aware of: that paedophiles collect prints, photographs and videos, and as the opportunity to use the latest technology has come in, they have moved on from videos that cannot be encrypted to digital information that can. In fact, they have gone beyond that, because many of them are using computers without any hard disc, and are storing information elsewhere. 
 It is exceptionally difficult for police forces to get at the information. The reasons why they want to get at that information are quite complex, but there are two basic ones. First, they want to find out who the children are. Police forces across the world are co-operating on that. When they have pictures of the children, they mix and match them to try to locate the children, so that they can get care and attention and be helped. Sometimes the police are there in time, and sometimes they are too late. Quite a number of children that I know of who have been featured in video films and who will, of course, be on the internet for ever and ever have ended up in mental hospitals; some have, ultimately, been cured. 
 The second reason why the police want that information is that it is an opportunity to find out whether, as new clause 8 points out, more people than just the individual who has been convicted have been 
 involved in a crime. It is an opportunity to trace networks of paedophiles, which are common. The first move on that was made by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which went through the House with full support. The difficulty is that any individual who is convicted can get a maximum sentence of two years, but does not go on to the sex offenders list—this argument applies to new clause 9. The result is that any individual who is a paedophile will not reveal the information, as not doing so makes the sentence lesser and means that they will not go on the sex offenders list. The difficulty that police forces have is in trying to crack encrypted information; modern technology is moving exceptionally fast. 
 To try to get to grips with this subject, I obtained information from an expert who is one of the top people in this country working on encryption. The Government could use this gentleman's advice for information that they wanted encrypted and transferred from Department to Department—I am sure that he would be willing to help, but obviously for a fee. Fortunately, he did not charge me a fee, but pointed out that encryption has moved on rapidly. First, he stunned me by referring to information that we received from a police officer: some individuals are encrypting material by using a password system—by just picking a sentence from a book. My expert informed me that with computers of the type that the police have, it would take about two hours to break a forty-character code. However, he said that such codes and techniques are not what we should be aware of. He then started getting technical. He pointed out that we currently have a 128-bit encryption system, which is essentially unbreakable. The Romans had a 3-bit encryption system: A became C, B became D and so on. A 128-bit encryption system is therefore much more complex and impossible for straightforward computer systems to break. Even if one could, it would cost a considerable amount of money and a vast amount of time for individuals trying to break it. 
 To make matters worse, I understand that those who devised that system have moved on to 256-bit systems, which are even more difficult to break. To make matters even worse, those who launch themselves on the internet to find out about various changes in software find that the 128-bit system—and soon the 256-bit system—is available free to download. It is becoming simpler to operate and one can foresee the opportunity for paedophiles or anyone else who wants to use it to type two or three buttons and encrypt everything that they want to encrypt. If they are working with a machine that has access to a distant server, information can be sent off to Nigeria or wherever it is to be stored. 
 I think that trying to crack that situation is the wrong approach. The right approach, as set out in the amendment, is to be in a position to tell convicted sexual offenders or paedophiles that they must allow access for the police force to get at information so that the police need not spend their time trying to access it. New clauses 8 and 9 touch on that. New clause 9 is a little different because if someone is convicted of an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA, as the police call it—and the court is 
 satisfied that protected information is likely to contain indecent images of children, the offender will not only be given two years but will also be on the sex offenders list. 
 New clause 10 tightens the existing position. In the case of conviction for paedophile activities, the individual must not be allowed to work with children. The law as it stands basically says that the court must make an order to that effect. That is particularly important in the case of an individual such as Luke Sadowski, who was a trainee teacher and clearly going into that career for his hobby, if I may use that unfortunate phrase. But the court forgot—the prosecutor forgot—to ask that that particular ban should take effect. The whole point of new clause 10 is to ensure that that is automatic. Because that would be automatic I have also included an escape section so that in a case where an offender feels that he or she has good reason not to be caught by that automatic provision, they may apply to the court to have it set aside or reversed. The prosecution will be able to oppose that if they wish, as the clause sets out. If the court agrees to set that automatic provision to one side, it must give the reasons.

Dominic Grieve: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the new clauses. As he knows, I have in the past worked on the subject matter of new clause 8, encryption, with his assistance. I am wholly persuaded that we need to introduce legislation to deal with the problem of encryption and to provide a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the offence being investigated for those who refuse to provide the encryption key. It is a deplorable state of affairs that there could be reasonable suspicion that someone has downloaded pornographic and indecent images of children and they could be confronted with an investigation, but that because the police are unable to break the encryption, that person knows that he will receive a relatively short sentence as long as he refuses to co-operate, whereas he would be likely to receive a more substantial sentence if the information were obtained from his computer. That has always inclined me to the view that we must do something about encryption, which is what new clause 8 achieves. I hope that the Minister will respond to it positively.
 New clause 9 follows logically from new clause 8. My hon. Friend was also right about new clause 10. The particular case that he cited illustrates how unfortunate it is that one has to have a court order or nothing can be done subsequently. Introducing an automatic provision that an offender cannot work with children following a conviction would close that loophole. That, too, appears to merit a favourable response from the Government. 
 I appreciate that the Government may wish to go away and consider that further but I hope that on such important matters they can take on board my hon. Friend's points and respond positively.

Paul Goggins: I well remember the visit to the Metropolitan police to which the hon. Member for Mole Valley referred. Two things stand out in my mind as I think back to it. One is the complexity of the task that those officers have in an ever-changing world of technology and deviousness on the part of the
 people who operate with those systems for the purposes of child pornography and child abuse. The second is the enormous dedication of the people who, day in, day out, year in, year out, do a job on our behalf that none of us would ever want to have to do. I pay tribute to them for that.
 It is clear from that visit, from the various discussions that we have had and from his speech to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman understands the complexity of those issues very well. We have much to learn from him. I am delighted that he is a member of the taskforce that I chair—his contribution to it is welcome. Although I shall mostly resist his amendments, I hope that he will not think that I do not take the issues he raised as seriously as he does. I understand why he tabled the new clauses. 
 New clause 8 would use the threat of an extended term of imprisonment as an encouragement to an offender to disclose electronic information that they have protected. The hon. Gentleman has already indicated that when it is implemented, part III of RIPA will provide a power to compel the disclosure of protected information. Having said that, I recognise that there is a concern, which is reinforced by what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, that as the criminal use of encryption becomes more widespread and people become more proficient, some offenders might choose to accept a two-year term of imprisonment rather than disclose the full horrors of their data and open themselves up to much longer terms of imprisonment. However, for there to be a seven-year term of imprisonment for failing to produce a password, without any other form of offending, is perhaps not proportionate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mole Valley will reflect on that. 
 I want to consider further the suggestion that where a conviction for a schedule 3 offence is secured, where the police have recovered protected information during the investigation and where the offender has failed to comply with the disclosure requirement under RIPA, the court should be able when sentencing to draw an inference about the data that the offender is seeking to protect—even on conviction. I hope that that gives some encouragement to the hon. Gentleman in the context of the implementation of RIPA. The drafting of the clause does not catch the right balance. 
 I understand entirely the objective that gave rise to new clause 9. However, I do not accept that it is appropriate or consistent with a notification under part 2 for offenders who have failed to comply with the requirement under section 53 of RIPA to face sex offender registration at the discretion of the court. We have on several occasions talked about sex offender registration being an automatic requirement following conviction for a sexual offence. The notification requirements are not in themselves a punishment—they are part of an administrative procedure. To include in the register people convicted only of failing to comply with a requirement to disclose protected information could seriously undermine its credibility. 
 New clause 10 would introduce a provision to disqualify from working with children any person who is convicted of an offence in part 1 and receives one of the qualifying sentences. I share the hon. Gentleman's 
 desire to provide maximum protection for children. That has been the central task of the Committee and we have had a fair consensus on it throughout our deliberations. Although the new clause is not required and I do not see how it can be justified, I want to reflect on the issues he raises. 
 To extend the scheme to those who commit offences against an adult only would bring within its scope some cases where there is no evidence of a risk to children. As heinous as all of those crimes may be, someone who has committed a sexual crime against an adult may not be a risk to children. I want to reflect further on that. 
 We must take account of the severity of the disqualification scheme. It provides a lifetime ban on all work with children, even helping out with one's own children in a local sports activity, or another young person's activity. It is a serious thing for a lifetime ban of that kind to be implemented. We want protection, but we also want a system that works. I think that we are all pleased with the level of compliance that we have achieved through the register to date. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pressing us hard on the issue. I am sure that he will continue to do so. I hope he feels that he is making some progress and that, in that spirit, he will withdraw his amendment.

Paul Beresford: That reply was a little disappointing, but not too surprising. New clause 9 was pushing the boundaries quite hard. However, what the Under-Secretary said about new clause 8 was a little bit flawed. The wording at the beginning makes it clear that it would apply only to someone who has already been convicted of an offence involving indecent activities against children—paedophile activity is perhaps the best way of putting it. I shall reflect on what he said and may possibly return to it on Report.
 I will reflect on the Under-Secretary's points about new clause 9. They have some validity. 
 I was a little surprised by the Minister's reaction to new clause 10. I used Luke Sadowski as an example. Once he comes out of prison Luke Sadowski is technically free to work with children because someone forgot. Putting the boot on the other foot and turning the matter around offers an opportunity, which could perhaps become standard practice for the defence on behalf of the convicted individual, to appeal against the automatic requirement not to work with children. I do not know how many other individuals like Luke Sadowski, who would quite clearly be dangerous to children, have slipped through the net because someone forgot. 
 I want to go away and think about this again. As a Labour Back Bencher said, this is a unique opportunity because it is a unique Bill. If we miss the opportunity we will miss it for half a lifetime. I hope that the Minister will look at this seriously and find a way to get a change along these lines because at 
 the end of the day we are helping battered, abused children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 11 - Information for research

(1) A person having functions by virtue of this Act shall, on being required to do so by the ministers of the Home Office— 
 (a) provide them or any other person specified in the requirement with such relevant information as is so specified; and 
 (b) do so in any such form as may be specified. 
 (2) The Home Office may, under subsection (1) above, require the provision of relevant information only if, in their opinion, it is needed by them (or, as the case may be, the other person specified in the requirement) for research purposes. 
 (3) Information need not be provided under this section if, were it evidence which might be given in proceedings in any court in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, the person having that evidence could not be compelled to give it in such proceedings. 
 (4) Where information required under subsection (1) above— 
 (a) is, or refers to, information about a natural person and would identify or enable the identification of the person; and 
 (b) can reasonably be provided under subsection (1) above so as not to identify or enable the identification of the person, 
 it shall be so provided. 
 (5) Where— 
 (a) the person required under subsection (1) to provide the information is under a duty of confidentiality in respect of that information; and 
 (b) the person cannot provide the information without breaching the duty, 
 the information shall not be provided unless the person to whom the duty was owed has consented to its provision. 
 (6) On receipt of information provided under this section, the Home Office (or any other person provided under this section with the information) may, for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) above, do any, or all of the following— 
 (a) process the information; 
 (b) collate it; 
 (c) publish it or reports based on it. 
 (7) Regulations may provide as to the procedure to be followed in making requirements under this section for information and in providing it. 
 (8) Where information recorded otherwise than in legible form is required to be provided under this section, it shall be provided in legible form. 
 (9) For the purposes of this section— 
 (a) information is ''relevant'' if it is information as to the operation, use and consequences of this Act; 
 (b) a person is under a duty of confidentiality in respect of information although the person could notwithstanding that duty be compelled to give evidence as to that information in proceedings in a court in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. 
 (10) For the purposes of this section, any reference to Northern Ireland is applicable only in those circumstances where the provision as set out in Part 3, clause 139, section (2) of this Act apply. 
 (11) For the purposes of this section, any reference to Scotland is applicable only in those circumstances where the provisions as set out in Part 3, clause 139, section (3) of this Act apply.'.—[Mrs. Brooke.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 12—Duty to monitor operation of Act and promote best practice— 
'The Home Office shall— 
 (a) monitor the operation of this Act; and 
 (b) promote best practice in relation to the operation of this Act.'.
 New clause 13—Codes of practice— 
'(1) The Lord Chancellor must prepare a code or codes of practice— 
 (a) for the guidance of persons assessing whether a person has capacity or not in relation to any of the offences set out in this Act, 
 (b) for the guidance of persons diagnosing or obtaining diagnoses of persons for a learning disability or mental disorder in relation to any of the offences set out in this Act, 
 (c) for the guidance of persons coming into contact with persons with a mental disorder or learning disability due to their pursuing legal proceedings under this Act, 
 (d) setting out standards of training and education required by persons to work with adults with a learning disability or mental disorder in relation to offences of this Act, 
 (e) that provides guidance for persons involved in the provision of services to adults in connection with their having a learning disability or mental disorder on how this provision is affected by the offences set out in this Act, 
 (e) with regard to the recording of information relative to this Act, 
 (f) with respect to such other matters concerned with this Part as he thinks fit. 
 (2) The Lord Chancellor may from time to time revise any such code. 
 (3) Before preparing or revising a code of practice the Lord Chancellor must consult such persons as he thinks appropriate. 
 (4) The Lord Chancellor may delegate the preparation of the whole or any part of a code of practice so far as he considers expedient. 
 (5) The Lord Chancellor must publish any code of practice he has prepared or revised and lay copies of it before Parliament. 
 (6) It is the duty of a person to have regard to any relevant code of practice if he is— 
 (a) involved in the provision of any of the services covered by any of the offences outlined in the Act, 
 (b) acting in any of the roles covered by the offences set out in the Act, 
 (c) an employee or representative, whether paid or not and whether under contract or not, of the Crown Prosecution Service or the Police, 
 (d) acting in relation to any person with a learning disability or mental disorder, 
 (e) acting in relation to any person without the capacity to consent, 
 (f) acting with regard to the recording of information relative to this Act, 
 (g) acting in relation to any other matters of concern to this Act. 
 (7) A code of practice— 
 (a) is admissible in evidence in any civil or criminal proceedings, and 
 (b) may be taken into account by the court in any case in which it appears to the court to be relevant.'.

Annette Brooke: There is a considerable amount of detail in these three new clauses, which I feel that hon. Members will not want to read or listen to at this time in the evening. I will therefore look at the reasons for
 tabling the new clauses and explain what I would like them to achieve. I hope that the Minister is full of good will as we reach the end of the Bill. The three new clauses cover research, monitoring and the code of practice and apply to some of our most vulnerable adults. Again, I anticipate that the Minister's response will be to ask why they should be on the face of the Bill. I will address that in my remarks.
 First, on research, there is widespread agreement that if we really want to have effective protection of our vulnerable adults we need a proper understanding of the causes and effects of abuse. There is widespread agreement that like so many other problems, there have never been enough resources to undertake adequate research in this area. I tabled an early day motion on research to protect vulnerable people from sexual abuse. It now has 64 signatures. Without doubt there is a great deal of support for this. 
 I understand, although I stand to be corrected, that the Government have agreed that some monitoring of the impact of the implementation of the Bill is needed. However, I am not sure about the extent of the commitment. New clause 11 is based on a section in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 requiring that information be made available for research. It requires the provision of resources for research and ensures that procedures are in place to facilitate it. I am speaking on behalf of a particular interest group and I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on this so that it can be recorded in Hansard. That would obviously be helpful. 
 New clause 12 concerns monitoring. It is fairly short and it is also based on a clause under the Scottish mental health Act. We are suggesting that there is a precedent for such points to be incorporated into the Bill. 
 It will be so important for the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to be fully informed about the appropriate handling of cases involving vulnerable adults. Training and education about capacity and diagnoses will be needed. New clause 13 is based on a code of practice clause, a measure under the draft Mental Incapacity Bill that was introduced at the end of June. Interest groups that work with people with disabilities are most concerned about such important issues. I tabled the new clauses in all sincerity in the hope that the Solicitor-General could give legislative comfort to those interest groups.

Harriet Harman: The importance of research is absolutely clear. We must research what is going on, which is changing as a result of new means of communication and information technology as well as new ways in which criminals go about their business. We must also research whether our responses are effective and thoroughly examine such issues. I am suggesting not that we put such provisions on a statutory basis, but that the Home Office, in particular, and the wider ministerial group—such matters go beyond the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to education and to health—embrace the intention that lies behind new clause 11 and consider what part ongoing research can play in helping us to tackle the problems that the Bill is aimed at redressing.
 That is the general point of principle to bear in mind, but it would not be right to require people to give information to the Home Office. When I first read the new clause and remembered my days at the National Council for Civil Liberties, the idea that anyone could be under a statutory obligation to give information when required to do so by the Home Office would send shivers down people's spine. The new clause is wrong, but its intention will be embraced by the ministerial group. We undertake to ensure that everyone understands what role research will play in implementation and monitoring. 
 As for new clause 12, the hon. Lady may rest assured that monitoring will be carried out by the Home Affairs Committee and the ministerial group. Questions will be asked. The Scottish mental health Act is not entirely analogous because it is about the provision of services. It is not the same as the provisions under discussion, so I am not sure that it can be lifted over into the Bill. However, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept our assurances that the Act will be monitored.

Paul Beresford: As an aside, does the Solicitor-General agree that it is rather interesting that the Government are not applying a requirement to monitor under the Bill? However, there is generally a provision in local government Bills to require local government to do exactly that.

Roger Gale: Order. That is a fascinating observation, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Minister.

Harriet Harman: But the hon. Member for Mole Valley has given us the opportunity to give undertakings that will be in Hansard, albeit not in the Bill. That is slightly different. We are talking about what the Government are committing themselves to doing in response to the new clauses.
 New clause 13 would require the Lord Chancellor to prepare codes of practice and guidance. Again, I support the Home Office—we all support the principles behind such matters. Training—both initial and ongoing—will be essential. Guidance is important; there should be consultation on the guidance and it should be published, so that people's responsibilities across the different agencies are made clear, and it is also clear whether those responsibilities are being fulfilled. 
 However, I think that the new clause—unlike a Liberal new clause—is rather centrist. It seems unlikely that the Lord Chancellor will issue codes of conduct and draw up guidance for everyone. That is probably not the way to proceed, but the ministerial committee will embrace that matter. 
 The implementation programme, which will be led by the Under-Secretary, is enormous. Although I am on the margins of this enterprise, I have heard the discussions about the implementation. It is a huge programme, and training, codes of conduct and guidance are very much part of it. However, I ask the Committee to reject the proposed new clauses.

Annette Brooke: I am happy to withdraw the new clause. The great advantage of being in my position as an MP is that I know that my amendments will never be accepted, so I do not have to dwell too much on the finer points. Even the good ones are only taken back for consideration. I accept that the new clause is not in the style in which it might have been if I had had enough time to draft it myself. However, I think that the organisation that asked to have those points discussed today had important points to make in what we all accept has been a particularly difficult area of a difficult Bill. I thank the Solicitor-General for her helpful comments, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1 - Procedure for ending notification requirements for abolished homosexual offences

Scope of Schedule 
 1 This Schedule applies where a relevant offender is subject to the notification requirements of this Part as a result of a conviction, finding or caution in respect of an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) (buggery or indecency between men). 
 Application for decision 
 2 (1) The relevant offender may apply to the Secretary of State for a decision as to whether it appears that the person with whom the act of buggery or gross indecency was committed— 
 (a) was aged 16 or over at the time of the offence, and 
 (b) consented to the act. 
 (2) An application must be in writing and state— 
 (a) the name, address and date of birth of the relevant offender, 
 (b) his name and address at the time of the conviction, finding or caution, 
 (c) so far as known to him, the time when and the place where the conviction or finding was made or the caution given and, for a conviction or finding, the case number, 
 (d) such other information as the Secretary of State may require. 
 (3) An application may include representations by the relevant offender about the matters mentioned in subparagraph (1). 
 Decision by Secretary of State 
 3 (1) In making the decision applied for, the Secretary of State must consider— 
 (a) any representations included in the application, and 
 (b) any available record of the investigation of the offence and of any proceedings relating to it that appears to him to be relevant, 
 but is not to seek evidence from any witness. 
 (2) On making the decision the Secretary of State must— 
 (a) record it in writing, and 
 (b) give notice in writing to the relevant offender. 
 Effect of decision 
 4 (1) If the Secretary of State decides that it appears as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), the relevant offender ceases, from the beginning of the day on which the decision is recorded under paragraph 3(2)(a), to be subject to the notification requirements of this Part as a result of the conviction, finding or caution in respect of the offence. 
 (2) Subparagraph (1) does not affect the operation of this Part as a result of any other conviction, finding or caution or any court order. 
 Right of appeal 
 5 (1) If the Secretary of State decides that it does not appear as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), and if the High Court gives permission, the relevant offender may appeal to that court. 
 (2) On an appeal the court may not receive oral evidence. 
 (3) The court— 
 (a) if it decides that it appears as mentioned in paragraph 2(1), must make an order to that effect, 
 (b) otherwise, must dismiss the appeal. 
 (4) An order under subparagraph (3)(a) has the same effect as a decision of the Secretary of State recorded under paragraph 3(2)(a) has under paragraph 4. 
 (5) There is no appeal from the decision of the High Court. 
 Transitional provision 
 6 Until the coming into force of the repeal by this Act of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (c.51), this Schedule has effect as if references to this Part of this Act were references to Part 1 of that Act.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Paul Goggins: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. I am advised that this is the appropriate form in which to do this. As we come to the end of our Committee's deliberations, I want to make one or two brief comments. This has been my first Committee as a Minister, and I have learned a great deal from it. For all of us, this Committee has been a once-in-a-lifetime experience, because it is almost 50 years since a Bill of this sort was last considered.
 The Committee has enabled us to reconsider and reinforce the seriousness of some offences that have been with us for a very long time—offences such as rape and sexual assault of children. It has also enabled us to deal with some new offences in our rapidly changing world, particularly the offence of grooming of children on the internet, which was introduced in the Bill. 
 We live in a fast-moving world, and we have been attempting to provide a robust framework in law. However, as the Solicitor-General said on several occasions, we must, through the interministerial group, the taskforce on child protection on the internet, and other mechanisms, ensure that the Bill, when it becomes law, is a law that works in practice. I am committed to that. 
 From the beginning, the Bill has been on a constant path of improvement, and reference has been made to that. We pay tribute to colleagues in the other place for their contribution. I believe that the Bill will be shown to have improved throughout the Committee scrutiny. 
 I am not hopeful about the champagne, but I believe that as we approach Report, it will be clear to any member of the Committee that the Government have been listening, have been trying to ensure that there is consistency, and have taken account of the points that were raised. 
 Finally, I give my thanks and those of the Committee to you, Mr. Gale, and to Mr. Griffiths. I also thank my ministerial colleagues and my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who keeps us all in order when required, to my hon. Friends and also to colleagues on the opposite side of 
 the House. There has not really been an opposite side in this Committee because we have all collaborated, listened and worked together. That has been an excellent experience and I thank the other parties. 
 I also thank the non-governmental organisations and others who provide background briefings and help to concentrate our minds on the issues. 
 Last, but by no means least, I thank the officials who work tirelessly to provide me and, ultimately, all of us with information that ensures that we get the best possible legislation.

Dominic Grieve: Further to that point of order, Mr. Gale. I want to echo the Minister's thanks to you and Mr. Griffiths for the way in which you have chaired the Committee. I also thank Mr. Cooke, the Clerk, for helping us with the tabling of amendments.
 This Committee has been a unique experience. It is the first Standing Committee on which I have served in which we have scrutinised every clause that we wanted to scrutinise of a Bill. I take that as a sign of improvement in the way in which the House goes about its business and it gave me real pleasure that we were able to achieve that. 
 As the Minister said, there have not really been two sides in the Committee. It has been a common enterprise and the Bill is a model of its kind in terms of being able to stand the test of time. It is a fascinating example of a Bill that started in the other place and was subjected to detailed scrutiny there with improvement to some difficult areas, and was then subjected to renewed scrutiny in this place. That has been beneficial and the Bill will end up commanding widespread respect. 
 I look forward to hearing from the Government on one or two of the matters that we raised, on which I hope to receive some positive responses that will tidy up the Bill. From my point of view and, I dare say, from that of my hon. Friends, our discussion of the Bill has been a totally positive experience. I cannot always claim that and some legislation that has passed through this House has left me gnashing my teeth with indignation. That is not so with this Bill. Notwithstanding the sometimes sombre matters that we have had to consider, I am delighted to have been able to participate and I thank all Committee members for what we have been able to achieve.

Annette Brooke: I should like to endorse the thanks from both sides of the Committee. It has indeed been a great pleasure to serve on it, although I am wary about saying that and how much I have enjoyed myself in case people take it the wrong way. The cross-party working and genuine debate across the Committee has been a tremendous experience. It is quite off-putting to a member of the minority party when there are many hon. Members on the other side reading books and not fully engaging in the proceedings. It has been a really good experience to have an engaged and proper discussion and I hope that there will be a good outcome from that positive discussion.
 As well as thanking everyone in the Room, I thank our colleagues in the House of Lords because, without doubt, they provided a tremendous basis on which to 
 start. I look forward to the next stage because we must revisit a number of issues, but I believe that there will be co-operation because there is determination to tackle the champagne question. I hope that the civil servants will be inspired by the cross-party working and come up with the answer for us. I am sure that we would be for ever in their debt. We have praised ourselves on this being the first legislation on this matter in 50 years, but we must have a Bill for the 21st century and the issue of kissing is just not right for a Bill in the 21st century. I look forward with anticipation to all the learned people putting their heads together and coming up with the solution that we all desire. 
 Finally, I really am beginning to learn the Committee's procedures, Mr. Gale, thanks to your imposing them so rigidly. I appreciate that.

Roger Gale: Happily, none of that is a point of order for the Chair, but I am grateful for the kind comments from hon. Members and I know that Mr. Griffiths will also appreciate them.
 I should like to add my thanks to the Clerk to the Committee, the Hansard writers and the Officers of the House without whose assistance most of our work would be difficult if not impossible. 
 I hope that the Committee will not think it patronising if I say that I have chaired a considerable amount of legislation in my time and the Committee's behaviour, good humour and courtesy and the responsible way in which it handled some extremely sensitive issues has been exemplary. I am deeply grateful to hon. Members on both sides for that. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock.